8/8/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Bou 95 PAPE 868 (B) The granting of the variance will not cause injury to adjacent property or any natural resource; (C) The conditions upon which a request for variance are based are unique to the property for which the waiver is sought and are not generally applicable to other property in the adjacent area and do not result from actions of the applicant; and (D) The variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Indian River County land development regulations, the Indian River County Comprehensive -Land Use Plan, and this Chapter. If the board approves a_variance, it may attach any such conditions to the variance as will assure that the variance will not result in noncompliance with the intent and purpose of this Chapter. Violation of any such condition shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter. It is staff's position that none of these criteria is satisfied by the request. (A) The physical conditions, shape, and topography of the subject property do not cause a hardship in the development of the property. The property is developable and has no unique physical characteristics that create a development hardship. (B) The granting of the variance would increase the number of homesites using 62nd Avenue and, therefore, would increase traffic on 62nd Avenue. Such traffic would impact the roadway and would contribute to maintenance needs. Therefore, granting the variance would negatively impact adjacent property since such action would contribute to roadway maintenance needs. (C) Conditions of the property are not unique, since many parcels exist in the county that would require road paving in order to allow a subdivision development. Granting the request would set a precedent that could apply to other parcels on the east side of 62nd Avenue, as well as other unpaved local county roads, including 62nd Drive located one block to the west. (D) The variance request is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the LDRs to avoid approving new development that does not meet current paving standards. Granting such approval would allow more intense use of an unpaved road. SUMMARY It is the developers' responsibility to initiate action, such as a petition paving request or involuntary assessment proposal, to ensure that the subdivision ordinance paving requirement is satisfied. Through such assessment processes, the county can directly address the funding equity concerns raised by the applicant. In staff's opinion, granting such a variance would set a precedent for similar situations throughout the county and would result in more development using substandard roadways and increasing maintenance needs and costs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the variance request. 20 August 8, 1995 M M M